Congress Lends a Hand

This will be a long post, with lots of long quotes, but it's important, so pay attention. As you may or may not know Congress is debating a new procedure that would give the Department of Defense much greater flexibility in moving money around between various appropriations without consulting Congress. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate to testify in behalf of this new procedure. A short overview of the testimony has been provided by the helpful folks at MSNBC. For those who prefer to read the entire transcript, the New York Times has you covered. And if you have three hours to kill, you can watch the entire session, thanks to America's Sweetheart C-Span.

Among the many subjects discussed was the rebuilding of Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld stated, "The -- I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction in a sense. What we have is a responsibility to get that country on a path that it has a representative government that is -- fulfills the standards that General Myers outlined. We want to participate in reconstruction. Other countries will want to participate in reconstruction."

Sec. Rumsfeld also stated, "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government itself and the international community."

However, when pressed by Senator Patty Murry (D-WA), he clarified his position.

"SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): Doesn't the president's larger objective for the Middle East and for our relations with the Muslim world and for the war on terrorism require us to have a long- term commitment to reconstruction in Iraq?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Sure. I hope I didn't say anything that left the contrary impression. There's no question but that I was referring to the military side.

We feel we need to stay there as long as is necessary but not any longer. Conversely, if you talk about the United States and the international community, we have to have an interest and we have to see that that country gets put on a path toward some sort of representative government that is not going to threaten its neighbors. There's no question but that if that is successful, as I believe it will be, that the economic circumstance in the region will be vastly better for Turkey, for Jordan and for the other countries in the region.

SEN. MURRAY: Your term of putting it on a path concerned me. It sounded like we're going to put it on a path and walk away.

SEC. RUMSFELD: No, no, I don't mean to suggest that at all."

So apparently what Sec. Rumsfeld meant was that the Military forces had little role to play in reconstruction, other than presumably keeping the peace. And in that he's undoubtedly correct, although I would think pictures of soldiers working to rebuild Iraq would help us immensely. I hope his comments are not indicative of an administration willing to say anything to get us into war, but unwilling to live up to its promises.

As for the added flexibility, Senators Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC), and Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) had some strong comments on that issue.

But most particularly, Mr. Secretary, get this administration to ask not just for the money, but how to pay for it. The people of America are ready to sacrifice, they're ready to pay for this. I know Karl Rove thinks you need a tax cut in order to get reelected. But this is an embarrassment to this senator. I've been in government for 50 years, and what you've got me doing is telling that grunt, "We want you to go into battle, and we hope you don't get killed, and the reason we hope you don't get killed is we want you to hurry back so I can give you the bill. This generation, this Congress, this administration ain't going to pay for it. We need a tax cut so I can go to Disney World." Now, this is outrageous nonsense.
SEN. ERNEST "FRITZ" HOLLINGS (D-SC):

Mr. Secretary, I'm against giving additional flexibility. I will give every dollar — I'll support every dollar I can to help the troops and provide for their safety and to help win the war. But to have us extend these limitations to the extent that is being asked here, I just don't — I think it's too much. The reason we have separation of powers is to protect the liberties of the people, and checks and balances and the separation of powers have served the people well now for 215 years. And so count me out when you ask for these additional flexibilities.
SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD (D-WV)

I agree with the Senators from West Virginia and South Carolina. President Bush and his Department of Defense should, in this one instance, have to play by the same rules that everybody else has had to play by.